Telangana High Court
Kota Sambaiah vs The State, Rep Byits P.P on 22 September, 2022
Author: Shameem Akther
Bench: Shameem Akther
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.659 of 2014
JUDGMENT:(Per Hon'ble Dr.SA,J) This Criminal Appeal, under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C'), is filed by the appellant/accused, aggrieved by the judgment, dated 20.03.2014, passed in S.C.No.277 of 2013 by the learned Special Sessions Judge for SC/ST (POA) cases-cum-VII Additional Sessions Judge, at Warangal, whereby, the Court below, acquitted the appellant/ accused for the offence under Section 307 of IPC and convicted him for the offences under Sections 302 and 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and for the offence under Section 324 IPC, sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. We have heard the submissions of Sri Ramprasad Pathipaka, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant/accused, Sri C.Pratap Reddy, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/ State and perused the record.
2 Dr.SA, J & EVV, J Crl.A.No.659 of 2014
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:
The accused-Kota Sambaiah (hereinafter referred as 'accused') is the son of Deceased No.1-Kota Bhagyamma (hereinafter referred as "D.1") and Deceased No.2-Kota Mallesh (hereinafter referred as "D.2") and the offence took place on 16.08.2012 at Singarajupally Village, Athmakur Mandal, Warangal.
The marriage of the accused was performed with LW.2-Kota Rajitha (PW.2) on 15.06.2003 and they were blessed with two male children. For about two years, the accused and PW.2 lived at Singarajupally. Thereafter, the accused shifted his residence to Kashibugga, Warangal, and started residing in a rented house and eking out livelihood by doing garlic and ginger business. Since one year prior to the date of offence, the accused started suspecting the fidelity of PW.2 and used to beat her indiscriminately. When PW.2 disclosed about the torture of accused to his parents i.e, D.1 and D.2, they invited the accused and his family to attend Pochamma goddess Bonalu festival function at Singarajupally and accordingly, the accused and his family went to the house of D.1 and D.2 on 15.8.2012. On 16.8.2012 at about 12.00 noon, the accused picked up quarrel with PW.2, abused her, threatened her with dire consequences and picked up an axe and attempted to kill her. On witnessing the same, D.1 rushed to the accused and took 3 Dr.SA, J & EVV, J Crl.A.No.659 of 2014 away the axe from the hands of accused and concealed it in the house. The accused grew wild against D.1, abused and threatened her with dire consequences stating that "NEEVU ADDAM VASTHE NINNU KOODACHAMPUTHANU" (if u interfere, I will kill you also). Later all of them slept. During the same day night at 11:30 pm, the accused made galata, picked up Ratnam stick (weaving stick) and started beating PW.2 and on hearing the cries of PW.2, D.1 went to rescue her, for which, the accused grew wild on D.1 and attacked her with said ratnam stick (weaving stick) and beat her indiscriminately. On witnessing the same, LW.1-Mulka Ravali (PW.1) and PW.2 made hue and cries. Then D.2, who was sleeping in front of the house under the tin shed, woke up and rushed into the house to rescue D.1, for which, the accused attacked D.2 with the same stick and thus caused instantaneous death of D.1 and D.2. The neighbours i.e, LW.3-Kota Veeresh (PW.4), LW.4-Kota Indra (PW.3), LW.5-Kosanam Kavitha (PW.5) on hearing the cries of PWs.1 and 2 rushed to the scene and got to know about the incident through PWs.1 and 2 and found D1 and D2 in a pool of blood. On seeing the arrival of PWs.3 to 5, accused started running out of the house, for which, PWs.3 to 5 tried to catch the accused, then accused attacked PWs.3 to 5 with the same stick and caused injuries to them and fled away from the scene concealing the 4 Dr.SA, J & EVV, J Crl.A.No.659 of 2014 crime weapon. PW.2, PW.3 & PW.5 took first aid treatment with RMP Doctor i.e, LW.11-Ladella Srinivas @ Dora Babu (PW.8) and PW.4-Kota Veeresh, went to MGM hospital, Warangal for treatment. On the next day morning i.e, on 17.08.2022 at 09:00hours, PW.1-Mulka Ravali, granddaughter of D.1 and D.2, lodged Ex.P.1-report with the police.
4. Basing on Ex.P.1-report dated 17.08.2022, lodged by PW.1- Mulka Ravali, PW.14-Sub-Inspector of Police, Athmakur Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.225 of 2012 against the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC and issued Ex.P25- First Information Report. PW.15-Inspector of Police, Athmakur Police Station, took up further investigation. During investigation, on 24.08.2012 at 11.00 hours, PW.15 apprehended the accused at Damera X roads, interrogated him and in pursuance of his confession, seized the crime weapon i.e, wooden stick (which would be used in weaving works) in the presence of panchas and thereafter, arrested the accused and sent him to judicial remand. The statements of LWs.1 to 5 (PWs.1 to 5), under Section 164 Cr.P.C were recorded by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mulug, on 20.10.2012. After completion of investigation, PW.15 5 Dr.SA, J & EVV, J Crl.A.No.659 of 2014 filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 302 and 307 IPC.
5. The learned I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal, took cognizance of the case against the accused for the offences under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC, registered the same as P.R.C.No.7 of 2013 and committed it to the Sessions Division at Warangal, since the offences are exclusively triable by the Court of Session. On committal, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Warangal, numbered the case as S.C.No.277 of 2013 and made over to the Court below for disposal, in accordance with law.
6. On appearance of the accused, the trial Court initially, framed charges under Sections 302 and 307 IPC against the accused, read over and explained to him, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. At later point of time, the trial Court framed additional charge against the accused for the offence under Section 324 IPC, read over and explained to him, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 15 and got marked Exs.P1 to P28, besides case properties, MOs.1 to 11. PW.1-Mulka Ravali is the niece of accused. PW.2-Kota Rajitha is the wife of accused. PW.3-Kota 6 Dr.SA, J & EVV, J Crl.A.No.659 of 2014 Indira is the wife of PW.4. PW.4-Kota Veeresham is the cousin brother of the accused. PW.5-Kosanam Kavitha is the neighbour of D.1 and D.2. PWs.1 to 5 are direct witnesses. PW.6-Vodela Sadanandam is the photographer. PW.7-K. Ramesh is the owner of the house, where the accused and his family used to reside as tenants. PW.8-L.Srinivas is the RMP doctor, who gave first aid treatment to the injured in the present case. PW.9-K. Ravinder is the panch witness for scene of offence. PW.10-L.Krishna Murthy is the panch witness for inquest panchanama. PW.11-M.Ratan Kumar is the panch witness for confession and seizure panchanama. PW.12-Dr.I.Prakash is the doctor, who treated PW.4. PW.13- Dr.K.Laxman, is the doctor who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of D.1 and D.2. PW.14-V.Kranthi Kumar, is the Sub-Inspector of Police of Atmakur PS who registered the subject crime and issued F.I.R. PW.15-A. Kishore Kumar, Inspector of Police, Atmakur PS, is the Investigating Officer, who conducted investigation, arrested the accused and laid charge-sheet before the Court. Ex.P.1 is the report dated 17.08.2022 lodged by PW.1 to the police. Exs.P2 and P3 are the 164 Cr.P.C statements of PWs.1 and 2, respectively. Exs.P.4 to P.6 are portions in 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2. Ex.P.7 and P.8 are 164 Cr.P.C statements of PWs.4 and 5. Exs.P9 to P14 are positive 7 Dr.SA, J & EVV, J Crl.A.No.659 of 2014 photos. Ex.P15 is the C.D. Ex.P16 is the crime details form. Exs.P17 and P18 are the inquest reports of D1 and D2 respectively. Ex.P19 is the admissible portion of confession panchanama of accused. Ex.P20 is seizure memo. Ex.P21 is the wound certificate of PW.4-Kota Veeresham. Ex.P22 is x-ray report of PW.4. Exs.P23 and 24 are post-mortem examination reports of D1 and D2 respectively. Ex.P25 is the F.I.R issued by PW.14. Ex.P26 is letter of request. Ex.P27 is RFSL report and Ex.P28 is the attested copy of letter of advice. MO.1 is the Ratnam stick. MO.2 is bloodstained petticoat. MO.3 is bloodstained blanket. MO.4 is bloodstained plastic mat. MO.5 is bloodstained yellow colour jacket of D.1. MO.6 is bloodstained green coloured petticoat of D.1. MO.7 is bloodstained red and white colour polyester saree of D.1. MO.8 is bloodstained white colour towel of D.1. MO.9 is bloodstained orange colour lungi of D.2. MO.10 is bloodstained ash colour cut drawer of D.2. MO.11 is bloodstained sacred thread (janjam) of D.2.
8. On completion of the prosecution evidence, when the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating material appearing against him. On behalf of the accused, no evidence, either oral or documentary, was adduced.
8 Dr.SA, J & EVV, J Crl.A.No.659 of 2014
9. The trial Court, having considered the submissions made and the evidence available on record, vide impugned judgment, dated 20.03.2013, acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 307 IPC and convicted him for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 IPC and sentenced him as stated supra. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred this appeal.
10. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused would contend that there was no motive on the part of the accused to cause the death of D.1 and D.2, who are his parents. The evidence of PW.1, who is a child witness, is not corroborated by any other witness. The presence of PW.1 at the scene of offence is doubtful. Therefore, it is unsafe to act upon the testimony of PW.1. The accused had no intention to cause the subject deaths. There are inconsistencies and omissions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. There is no substantial evidence to prove that the accused had caused the subject deaths. Even if the prosecution case is taken as true, there was grave and sudden provocation by the deceased. At the most, the alleged offence would fall under Section 304 Part II of I.P.C. Without there being any evidence on record, the trial Court came to a conclusion that the accused had caused the subject deaths and accordingly, convicted and 9 Dr.SA, J & EVV, J Crl.A.No.659 of 2014 sentenced him of the offences under Sections 302 and 324 I.P.C., which is erroneous. The Court below ought not have convicted and sentenced the accused of the offences under Sections 302 and 324 of I.P.C. and ultimately, prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the accused vide impugned judgment and acquit him.
11. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that D.1 and D.2 are mother and father of the accused. The accused was in the habit of suspecting the fidelity of his wife (PW.2) and used to beat her indiscriminately. When PW.2 complained to her in-laws i.e, D.1 (mother-in-law) and D.2 (father-in-law), they tried to pacify the accused by calling him to their house to attend Bonalu festival. On the fateful day i.e, on 16.08.2012 at about 12.00 noon, when the accused picked up quarrel with PW.2 and attempted to kill her with axe, D.1 intervened and concealed the said axe in the house. Then the accused grew wild against D.1, abused and threatened her with dire consequences. On the same day night at about 11:30 PM, while the accused was beating PW.2 with M.O.1-Ratnam stick (weaving stick), D.1 intervened and tried to rescue her (PW.2- daughter-in-law), for which, the accused attacked D.1 with M.O.1- 10 Dr.SA, J & EVV, J Crl.A.No.659 of 2014 ratnam stick and caused her death. On hearing hues and cries, D.2 intervened and tried to rescue his wife-D.1. Then the accused beat D.2 also with M.O.1 and caused his death. It is further submitted that besides the evidence of PW.1, there is also evidence of PW.2 to PW.5 to prove that there was clear intention on the part of the accused to cause the subject deaths. When there is acceptable evidence regarding the commission of offence itself, proof of motive looses significance. There is clear and cogent evidence on record to establish the guilt of the accused. The prosecution proved the guilt of the accused of the offences under Sections 302 and 324 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. There was no sudden provocation, as alleged. The Court below had meticulously examined the entire evidence on record in right perspective and arrived at just conclusion. The Court below is justified in convicting and sentencing the accused of the offences under Sections 302 and 324 I.P.C. There are no circumstances to vary the impugned judgment and ultimately, prayed to dismiss the appeal by confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the accused vide the impugned judgment.
12. In view of the above submissions made by both sides, the points that arise for determination in this appeal are as follows:
11 Dr.SA, J & EVV, J Crl.A.No.659 of 2014
1. Whether the appellant/accused had caused the death of D.1 and D.2 on the intervening night of 16/17.08.2012?
2. Whether there was sudden and grave provocation in commission of subject deaths?
3. Whether the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the appellant/accused beyond all reasonable doubt?
4. Whether the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant/accused of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 of IPC, is liable to be set aside or varied as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused?"
POINTS:
13. The case of the prosecution in brief, is that on 16.08.2012 at 12:00 noon, in the house of D.1 and D.2, situated at Singarajupally Village, the accused picked up quarrel with his wife (PW.2) and attempted to kill her with axe. Then D.1 intervened and concealed the axe in the house. On the same day night, at about 11:30 PM, the accused again picked up quarrel with PW.2 and beat her with M.O.1-ratnam stick (weaving stick). When D.1 intervened and tried to rescue PW.2, the accused beat D.1 with M.O.1-ratnam stick indiscriminately and killed her. On hearing hues and cries, D.2 intervened and tried to rescue D.1, then the accused beat D.2 also with M.O.1-ratnam stick indiscriminately and killed him. Further, when PWs.3 to 5 tried to catch the 12 Dr.SA, J & EVV, J Crl.A.No.659 of 2014 accused, he caused injuries to them with the same stick and fled away from the scene.
14. There is evidence of PW.13-Dr.K.Laxman, who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of D.1 and D.2. He deposed that on 17.08.2012 at 12:00 PM, he received requisition from SHO, PS Atmakur to conduct post-mortem examination over the dead body of D.1-Smt. Kota Bhagyamma and accordingly, he conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of D.1 at 12:10 PM and found the following ante-mortem injuries:
External Injuries:
All the injuries described below are red in colour and fresh
1) laceration 12 x 12 cms, Boney deep, irregular margins, bridging connective tissue in the flur of the injury with severed blood vessels tissues, covered by clotted blood. Placed -
obliquely, over lateral end of right eyebrow. On to forehead merging with hair line on left side forehead. Covered clotted film of blood.
2) laceration: 8 x 2 Cms irregular margins along left eye brow extending boney deep extending to upper eye lid covered clothed film of blood.
3) Compressed bridge of the nose, face mutilated, pulpified. Underneath 1 and 2 injuries described above there were multiple communited depressed fractures.
Internal injuries:
1) Diffused contusion of the skull, red in colour, Multiple depressed communited fractures of calvarioum underneath it teared, dura and diffused sub dural, sub arachnoid Haemorrage of both cerebral Hemispheres of brain.
He deposed that he concluded post-mortem examination by 1:10PM and the approximate time of death was 12 to 18 hours 13 Dr.SA, J & EVV, J Crl.A.No.659 of 2014 prior to his post-mortem examination. Ex.P.23-post-mortem report of D.1 issued by PW.13 substantiates the same. PW.13 further deposed that on the same day i.e, on 17.08.2012 at 02:00 PM, he received requisition from PS Atmakur to conduct post- mortem examination over the dead body of D.2-Kota Mallesh and accordingly, he commenced post-mortem examination at 02:10 PM and found the following ante-mortem injuries:
"External injuries:
1) Pulpified entire left side of face, head with multiple lacerations of different sizes and shapes covered by red colour clotted blood.
Underneath the injuries there are multiple depressed communited fractures of left side calvarioum facial bones.
2) Abrasions 2 in number obliquely placed by 3 x 1 cms; 2 x 1 cms over left forearm (inner aspect) 3 cms above wrist joint, reddish blue in colour.
Internal injury:
1) Diffused contusion of scalp of the skull with multiple depressed communited fracture extending from left side to right side underneath skull fracture dura teared, with lacerated brain, and sub dural, subarachnoid haemorrhage of both cerebral hemispheres of the brain.
PW.13 deposed that he concluded post-mortem examination by 03:10 PM and the approximate time of death was 12 to 18 hours prior to his post-mortem examination. Ex.P.24-post-mortem report of D.2 issued by PW.13 substantiates the same. As per PW.13, the cause of death of D.1 and D.2 to the best of his knowledge and belief was due to blunt injury on head. PW.13 14 Dr.SA, J & EVV, J Crl.A.No.659 of 2014 further stated that the injuries noted in Exs.P23 and P24 can be possible by weapon like MO.1. Though PW.13 was cross examined at length, nothing was brought on record to discredit his testimony. There is also Exs.P.9 to P.14-photographs, Ex.P.15- C.D, Ex.P.16-crime details form along with rough sketch of the scene of offence, Ex.P.17-inquest report of D.1, Ex.P.18-inquest report of D.2 and Ex.P.27-RFSL Report, coupled with the evidence of PW.1, PW.3, PW.4, PW.5, PW.6, PW.9, PW.10 and PW.15 demonstrate that D.1 and D.2 were beaten at their house, situated at Singarajupally village, on the intervening night of 16/17.08.2012. Thus the evidence on record clinchingly establishes that the death of D.1 and D.2 is homicidal and it was caused on the intervening night of 16/17.08.2012 at Singarajupally Village. There is no dispute that the subject death is homicidal. The question that needs to be answered in this case is as to who caused the death of D.1 and D.2.
15. As seen from the material placed on record, the accused is the son of D.1 and D.2. PW.1 deposed that she is the niece of the accused (daughter of sister of the accused). She lost her parents during her childhood and she was brought up by her maternal grandparents i.e, D.1 and D.2 at their house in Singarajupally 15 Dr.SA, J & EVV, J Crl.A.No.659 of 2014 Village and on the date of commission of offence, she was studying IX class in Government High School, at Singarajupally village, while staying with D.1 and D.2. PWs.3 to 5 are neighbours of D.1 and D.2. PW.2 is the wife of the accused and about 8 or 9 years ago the accused shifted his residence to Kashibugga along with his wife and children and staying in the house of PW.7. On the invitation extended by D.1 and D.2, the accused along with his family went to the house of D.1 and D.2 on 15.8.2012 to celebrate Pochamma Bonalu festival. It is not in dispute that on the night of 16.8.2012, PW.1, accused, PW.2 and D.1 slept inside the house of D1 and D2, whereas D.2 slept in front of the house under tin roof shed. The house of D.1 and D.2 consists single room having single doorway.
16. There is evidence of PW.1-Mulka Ravali, who deposed that the accused along with PW.2 and their children came to the house of D.1 and D.2 to celebrate Pochamma deity bonalu festival at Singarajupally and that on 16.08.2012 at 12:00 noon, the accused due to suspicion quarrelled with PW.2. The accused, armed with axe, proceeded to PW.2 and tried to hack her. When D.1 intervened, the accused grew wild and warned D.1 to kill her first. It is also the evidence of PW.1 that during the same day n i g h t , 16 Dr.SA, J & EVV, J Crl.A.No.659 of 2014 the accused, PW.2, their children, herself and D.1 slept in the house whereas D.2 had slept under asbestos roof. At about 11.30 PM, the accused woke up and started quarrelling with PW.2. On that, D.1 chastised the accused as to why he was quarrelling with PW.2 and thereupon the accused grew wild, picked up Ratnam stick (MO.1) from the corner of the house and indiscriminately beat D.1 on her head, cheek legs and hands. When PW.1 interfered, she was pushed aside. Then due to fear PW.1 and PW.2 came out of the house and raised cries and on that, D.2 woke up and while enquiring with them entered into the house and accused closed the doors and beat both the deceased. On hearing their cries, the neighbours i.e, PWs.3 to 5 rushed to the spot and the accused opened the doors and found both the deceased lying dead inside the house andwhen they tried to catch hold of the accused, he beat PWs.3 to 5 also and escaped from that place. She further stated that there was electric supply to the house and illumination from electric lights, and there was oozing of blood from the injuries of D.1 and D.2. Ex.P.1 is the report given by PW.1 to police on 17.08.2012. M.O.1 is the ratnam stick used by the accused in the commission of offence. Ex.P.2 is 164 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1 given before the Magistrate, Mulug.
17 Dr.SA, J & EVV, J Crl.A.No.659 of 2014 Though PW.1 was cross examined at length, nothing was elicited to discredit her testimony.
17. PW.2-Kota Rajitha, wife of the accused and daughter-in-law of D.1 and D.2, had also supported the evidence of PW.1 to the extent of accused quarreling with her in the afternoon and also in the night on the date of commission of offence and the accused entering the room of D.1 and D.2. The statement of PW.2 recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C was marked as Ex.P.3. PW.2 was declared hostile. Exs.P.4 to P.6 are portions in 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2. It appears that PW.2, being the wife of the accused, wanted to protect him and did not support the prosecution case in toto. However, in the circumstances of case, what PW.1 deposed before the Court cannot be discarded.
18. There is also evidence of PW.3-Kota Indira, PW.4-Kota Veeresham and PW.5-Kosanam Kavitha, who are neighbours of D.1 and D.2. PW.3 deposed that about 11 months prior to her deposition, at about 11:00 pm, she along with PW.4 and PW.5 heard galata and went to the house of D1 and D2 and asked PWs.1 and 2 as to what happened. Then they stated that the accused was beating D.1 and D.2. Then PW.3 along with PW.4 and PW.5 entered into the house asking what was that quarrel.
18 Dr.SA, J & EVV, J Crl.A.No.659 of 2014 Thereupon, the accused beat them also. The accused was found standing in the house when they entered into house. D.1 and D.2 were found lying on the floor. The accused beat PW.3 on her right upper arm with M.O.1-stick and he also beat PWs.4 and 5 and then escaped from that place. PW.4-Kota Veeresham and PW.5- Kosanam Kavitha, former MPTC of Singarajupally and Ladella villages, who are neighbours of D.1 and D.2 also stated the same and as per their evidence also on hearing galata and cries at about 11.30 PM, they rushed to the house of D.1 and D.2 and they saw D.1 and D.2 lying dead in the house and the accused was very much present and they came to know from PW.1 that the accused was responsible for it and when they questioned the accused, he beat them also with MO.1 stick. PW.4 further deposed that he received injuries in the hands of accused with M.O.1-stick and he was treated in MGM hospital, Warangal. PWs.1, 3 and 5 also stated that accused beat PW.4. The evidence of PW.4 corroborates with his 164 Cr.P.C. statement marked as Ex.P7. The presence of PW.5 at the scene of offence is spoken by other prosecution witnesses and it is proved from the evidence of PWs.3, 5 and 8 that PWs.3 and 5 received injuries in the hands of accused with the same M.O.1-ratnam stick and PW.8 gave first-aid to PW.3 and 19 Dr.SA, J & EVV, J Crl.A.No.659 of 2014 PW.5. Ex.P.8-164 Cr.P.C statement of PW.5 is in conformity with the evidence given by her before the Court.
19. PW.6-Vodela Sadanandam, is the photographer, who took photographs of the dead bodies of D.1 and D.2 at the scene of offence. Exs.P.9 to P.14 are the positive photos and Ex.P.15 is the corresponding C.D.
20. The evidence of PW.7-K.Ramesh, except to say that the accused along with his family had been residing in his house at Kashibugga and the wife and husband are doing business in ginger and garlic, is of no use to prove the case of prosecution. PW.7 was declared hostile.
21. PW.8-L.Srinivas, RMP Doctor deposed that on 17.08.2012 PW.5 came to her with injuries stating that the accused killed his parents and when PW.5 tried to interfere she received injuries in his hands. PW.8 stated that he rendered first aid to PW.5. PW.8 also stated that when he was proceeding to the house of deceased, PWs.2 and 3 came to him with injuries and stated that the accused killed his parents and they received injuries when they interfered. He also deposed that PWs.2, 3 and 5 stated that the accused beat them with rathnam stick (M.O.1). Though PW.8 20 Dr.SA, J & EVV, J Crl.A.No.659 of 2014 was cross-examined at length, nothing was elicited to discredit his testimony.
22. PW.9-K.Ravinder, is the panch witness for scene of offence. He deposed that police seized M.O.2-bloodstained petticoat, M.O.3-bloodstained blanket, M.O.4-bloodstained plastic mat, from the scene of offence. He further depsoed that rough sketch was also prepared along with crime details form. Ex.P.16 is the crime details form with rough sketch.
23. PW.10-L.Krishna Murthy is the panch witness for inquest over the dead bodies of D.1 and D.2. He deposed on 17.07.2012, PW.15-C.I of Police called him and LW.15-Kolipaka Rani, and LW.16-Mulka Kumara Swamy and inquest was conducted over the dead bodies of D.1 and D.2. He deposed that there were injuries on face of D.1 and D.2 and there was injuries on right temple and over face on D.2. He deposed that clothes on the dead bodies of D.1 and D.2 were recovered by the police during inquest. MO.5 is bloodstained yellow colour jacket of D.1. MO.6 is bloodstained green coloured petticoat of D.1. MO.7 is bloodstained red and white colour polyester saree of D.1. MO.8 is bloodstained white colour towel of D.1. MO.9 is bloodstained orange colour lungi of D.2. MO.10 is bloodstained ash colour cut drawer of D.2 and 21 Dr.SA, J & EVV, J Crl.A.No.659 of 2014 MO.11 is bloodstained sacred thread (janjam) of D.2. Ex.P.17 is the inquest report of D.1. Ex.P.18 is the inquest report of D.2.
24. PW.11-M.Ratan Kumar, is the panch witness for confession and recovery of M.O.1-rathanm stick, deposed that on 24.08.2012 at about 11:00 AM, the accused confessed the commission of the offence and M.O.1 was recovered pursuant to his confession from the house situated at Singarajupally Village. Ex.P.19 is the admissible portion of confession statement of accused.
25. According to PW.12-Dr.I.Prakash, Civil Assistant Surgeon, MGM Hospital, who treated PW.4 deposed that he found the following injuries on PW.4 i.e, contusion below the left eye due to blunt object and swelling and tenderness of left side of the face and on upper lip due to blunt object. Ex.P.21-wound certificate of PW.4 issued by PW.12 substantiates the same. As per Ex.P22 x- ray report there was no bone injury and the injuries stated above can be possible by weapon marked in M.O.1-stick.
26. The evidence of PW.14-V.Kranthi Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police, Atmakur PS reveals that he received Ex.P1-report from PW.1, registered the subject crime for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. and issued Ex.P.25-FIR and submitted it to the concerned Court and he recorded the statement of PW.1 under 22 Dr.SA, J & EVV, J Crl.A.No.659 of 2014 Section 161 Cr.P.C and handed over the C.D file to PW.15- Inspector of Police, Atmakur PS for further investigation.
27. The evidence of PW.15-A.Kishore Kumar, Inspector of Police, Atmakur PS, reveals that he took up investigation in the subject crime and proceeded to the scene of offence, situated at Singarajupally village and secured the PW.6-photographer and videographer and got videographed and photographed the dead bodies of D.1 and D.2. Thereafter, he examined the scene of offence in the presence of PW.9 and LW.12-K.Sambaiah and prepared Ex.P16-crime details form and drew rough sketch. PW.15 further obtained M.Os.2 to 4 i.e, bloodstained petticoat, blanket and plastic mat from the scene of offence. He conducted inquest over the dead body of D.1 and D.2 in the presence of PW.10, LW.15-K.Rani, LW.16-M. Kumara Swamy and prepared Exs.P.17 and P.18-inquest reports. After completion of inquest, he forwarded the dead bodies of D.1 and D.2 to MGM hospital for post-mortem examination. PW.15 further deposed that PWs.2 to 5, who are injured, were examined at the scene and recorded their statements. On 21.08.2012, PW.15 filed requisition before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, for recording 164 Cr.P.C statements of witnesses and apprehended the accused at Damera cross roads on 23 Dr.SA, J & EVV, J Crl.A.No.659 of 2014 24.08.2012 in the presence of mediators PW.11 and LW.18-P. Premsagar and recorded the confession statement of accused before panchas under Ex.P.19-confession panchanama and in pursuance of the confession of accused PW.15 seized M.O.1- Ratnam stick under the cover of Ex.P20-seizure memo. MOs.5 to 8 and 9 to 11 were seized by PW.13-doctor and handed over to PW.15. On 30.08.2012, PW.15 filed requisition before the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal with letter of advise requesting the Court to send material objects to RFSL, Warangal. Ex.P.26 is the letter of request dated 30.08.2012. Material objects seized were sent to RFSL for examination and Ex.P27 is the RFSL report received from RFSL, Warangal. Ex.P.28 is the attested copy of letter of advise.
28. It is the contention of the accused that PW.1 is a child witness and therefore, it is unsafe to act upon her testimony. It is pertinent to state that PW.1 was 14 years old and studying IX class on the date of comission of offence and on the date of her deposition before the Court below, she was 15 years old. PW.1 is none other than the niece of accused and granddaughter of D.1 and D.2 and there was no reason for her to implicate the accused. The presence of PW.1 at the scene of offence was spoken by 24 Dr.SA, J & EVV, J Crl.A.No.659 of 2014 PW.2, PW.3, PW.4 and PW.5. Further, the evidence given by PW.1 is in conformity with Ex.P1-report lodged by her and consistent with her 164 Cr.P.C. statement marked as Ex.P2. PW.1 is not a tutored witness. She is a natural witness and she is capable of understanding the consequences of her deposition before the Court. Thus PW.1 is a competent and reliable witness and her evidence can be acted upon for the aforesaid reasons.
29. As seen from the material placed on record, the evidence of PW.1 gets corroboration from the evidence of PWs.2 to 5, PW.8, PW.12 and PW.13 and Ex.P.21-would certificate of PW.4 and Exs.P.23 and P.24-post-mortem reports of D.1 and D.2. There is ample evidence on record to substantiate that the accused beat D.1 and D.2 indiscriminately with M.O.1-stick in their house situated at Singarajupally by the accused. The evidence of prosecution witnesses clinchingly establish that the accused had caused the injuries to D.1 and D.2 as mentioned in Exs.P23 and P.24-PME reports and those injuries were caused with MO.1- ratnam stick. There is evidence of PW.13-Doctor to that effect. The Court below had analysed the whole evidence on record in right perspective and arrived at the conclusion that the accused 25 Dr.SA, J & EVV, J Crl.A.No.659 of 2014 caused the injuries to the deceased and is responsible for the death of the deceased.
30. With regard to the intention, it is contended that there was no intention on the part of the accused to cause the subject deaths. The intention has to be gathered from the circumstances of the case. As seen from the evidence on record, the accused picked up MO.1-ratnam stick from the house and caused injuries on the vital organs of the D.1 and D.2 with MO.1-ratnam stick. Multiple injuries were caused by the accused to D.1 and D.2. Had there been no intention on the part of the accused in causing the death of D.1 and D.2, he would not have beat D.1 and D.2 on the vital parts of the body, i.e., head, legs and hands. The place of injuries substantiates that the accused attacked D.1 and D.2 in order to eliminate them and he was successful in doing so. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was no intention on the part of the accused to cause the subject deaths.
31. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused would contend that even if the prosecution case is taken as true, there was grave and sudden provocation by D.1 and that therefore, at the most, the offence allegedly committed by the accused would fall under Section 304 Part II of I.P.C. Here, it is apt to state that 26 Dr.SA, J & EVV, J Crl.A.No.659 of 2014 for claiming an exception on the ground of "grave and sudden provocation" the facts that are required to be proved are (1) that the accused received provocation; (2) that the provocation was
(a) grave, and (b) sudden; (3) that he was deprived of his power of self-control by the provocation; (4) that while thus deprived of his power of self-control and before he could cool down, he caused the death of the person who gave him the provocation. Further, the question whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to murder is a question of fact, but should not be treated as a question of law and should be decided basing on the facts and circumstances of each case. In the instant case, as per the evidence on record, the accused suspected the fidelity of his wife (PW.2) and wanted to eliminate her. The accused made an attempt on her life on 16.08.2012 in the afternoon and also in the night. On both the occasions, D.1-mother of accused intervened and protected PW.2 from the hands of accused. On the same day, at about 11:30PM, the accused got provocated and mercilessly beat D.1. The evidence of PW.13-Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the D.1, substantiates that D.1 sustained injuries on her skull. All the injuries found over the person of D.1 clearly establishes that those injuries were caused with M.O.1 with great 27 Dr.SA, J & EVV, J Crl.A.No.659 of 2014 force and the place of injury is also vital, which clearly demonstrate the intention on the part of the accused to eliminate D.1 and in order to do so, he caused injuries to D.1. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was no intention on the part of accused to eliminate D.1. Further, there is also evidence of PW.13-Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of D.2 also that D.2 sustained injuries on his face, head, forearm and skull. The injury over the vital organ of the deceased i.e, skull was caused with M.O.1-ratnam stick with great force in order to eliminate D.2. Both D.1 and D.2 died on the spot, in a room, situated in their house at Singarajupally Village. The accused with an intention to kill D.1 and D.2, came with MO.1-ratnam stick, attacked them, caused injuries to D.1 and D.2 on the vital parts of their body and D.1 and D.2 succumbed to the said injuries. The trial Court while dealing with the subject matter placed reliance over the decision in Ganesh Nagaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh1 and observed that when there is acceptable evidence regarding the incident itself, proof of motive looses significance. There is nothing on record to hold that the accused received grave and sudden provocation from the deceased and thereby deprived of his power of self-control and whilst deprived of his power of self-control and 1 2004 (2) ALT (Crl.) 154 (DB) (AP) 28 Dr.SA, J & EVV, J Crl.A.No.659 of 2014 before he cooled down, he caused the death of D.1 and D.2. Therefore, the instant case does not fall within the exceptions given under Section 300 of IPC.
32. In the instant case, there is overwhelming and unimpeachable evidence on record to arrive at a conclusion that the accused, with an intention to cause the death of D.1 and D.2, mercilessly and indiscrimnately beat them with MO.1-ratnam stick on the vital parts of their body resulting in their instantaneous death and further voluntarily casued hurt to PWs.3 to 5 before escaping from the scene of offence. Thus the proseuction proved the guilt of the accused for the offences under Sections 302 and 324 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.
33. The trial Court had meticulously dealt with the entire evidence on record and rightly found the accused guilty of the offences under Sections 302 and 324 of IPC. The conclusions reached by the Court below are in tune with the evidence on record. There is nothing to take a different view. In view of these circumstances, none of the grounds raised on behalf of the accused merit consideration. The appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
29 Dr.SA, J & EVV, J Crl.A.No.659 of 2014
34. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the accused of the offences under Sections 302 and 324 of IPC vide judgment dated 20.03.2014, passed in S.C.No.277 of 2013 by the learned Special Sessions Judge for SC/ST (POA) cases-cum-VII Additional Sessions Judge, at Warangal.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall stand closed.
____________________ Dr. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J ___________________ E.V.VENUGOPAL, J Date: 22nd September, 2022 SCS