Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Gopisetty Harikrishna, Nellore Dt., vs State Of Ap., Rep Pp., on 15 November, 2019
Author: G.Shyam Prasad
Bench: G. Shyam Prasad
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.SHYAM PRASAD
+ Crl.A. No. 414 of 2015
% Dated: 15.11.2019
Gopisetty Harikrishna S/o.Venkateswarlu
.. Appellant
And
The State of Andhra Pradesh
Rep. by Public Prosecutor
.. Respondent
! Counsel for the Petitioner:
^ Counsel for the Respondents: Public Prosecutor
<Gist:
>Head Note:
? Citations:
2
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. SHYAM PRASAD
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 414 of 2015
ORDER:(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice G.Shyam Prasad) This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 30.09.2014 in S.c.No.325 of 2012 on the file of the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, SPSR Nellore.
2. The Appellant/A-1 was convicted for the offences under Sections 498-A, 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 498-A IPC in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month, and also sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default, to suffer simple imprisonment of one month, and also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 201 IPC and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.
3. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are as follows: 3
4. The appellant is A-1 in SC No.325 of 2012. The deceased is the wife of A-1 and their marriage took place about eight years prior to the death of the deceased. At the time of their marriage, the parents of the deceased gave an amount of Rs.55,000/- and 20 sovereigns of gold. Out of their wedlock, they were blessed with two male children. The accused/A-1 with the support of A-2 has been harassing the deceased demanding additional dowry. On the date of offence i.e., on 08.05.2011 at about 6.00 p.m. a quarrel took place between A-1 and the deceased and A-1 beat her with stick. L.Ws. 9 and 20 witnessed the said incident. A-1 with an intention to hide the offence, hanged the dead body of the deceased to the ceiling fan with the aid of the saree and raised hue and cry. On hearing the cries, L.Ws.5 to 10 neighbours rushed to the house of the accused and they were informed that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging herself in the house by bolting the house door. L.Ws.3 to 10 were there and found the dead body of the deceased, and placed it on the ground. L.W.5 informed the incident to the father of the deceased. L.W.1 along with L.Ws.2 to 4 came to the scene of offence and found the dead body of the deceased and gave a report to the Dagadarthi Police, and it was registered as a case in crime No.36/2011 under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC. The Police, after completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet before the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, 4 Kovur. The learned Magistrate has committed the case to the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore.
5. Based on the material available on record, the accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. and charges under Sections 498-A, 302 and 201 IPC were framed against the accused. The allegation against the accused is that on 08.05.2011 at about 6.00 p.m. in Ulavapalla village, he subjected the deceased to cruelty and committed murder intentionally by beating her with stick and also tried to cause disappearance of the evidenced and thereby hanged the dead body of the deceased to the ceiling fan with her saree with an intention of screening the offence of murder. The accused denied the charges; pleaded not guilty of the offences and claimed to be tried.
6. The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and marked Exs.P1 to P15 documents, besides the case property M.O.1. On behalf of defence, no witnesses were examined, but Exs.D1 to D7 were marked.
7. Heard arguments of both the counsel.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly argued that this is a case of suicide. The deceased had died by hanging herself to the ceiling fan. The version of prosecution that this is a case of homicide is not proved by medical evidence. The injury on the forehead of the 5 deceased is not supported by the inquest report. The inquest report does not disclose that the deceased had any injury on her forehead. Therefore, the medical evidence is not in accordance with the ocular evidence of the punch witness. It is further argued that A-1, who is the mother of the deceased was acquitted, on the same allegations and based on the same evidence, on which the accused was convicted.
9. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION:
Whether the death of the deceased is suicide or homicide ?
10. On perusal of the evidence, the injuries on the forehead of the deceased were not referred to either in the inquest report of post mortem or in the original complaint lodged by P.W.1. The injuries were noticed only during post mortem examination. The injuries could not be noticed by the panch witnesses. The medical evidence is clear to the effect that there is head injury. Unless there was a quarrel, the receipt of injury is not possible. As per post mortem examination, the case of death was due to head injury. It is obvious that after causing death, accused had hanged her to the ceiling fan to show it as a case of homicide. The version of defence that the accused and other neighbours found the deceased hanging with a saree to the ceiling fan and they broke open the doors and entered into the room is not supported by any evidence. P.Ws.3 and 4 have stated that all of them 6 broke open the door and brought the dead body of the deceased, itself shows that it is a tainted version of prosecution. Admittedly, there was quarrel between him and deceased and the deceased was found with head injury is, proved by medical evidence. The panch witness would not have noticed the same at the time of panchanama, and the complainant also would not have noticed the same. The post-mortem examination reveals that the cause of death is head injury and it is not the case of suicide and it is only a homicide.
11. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that P.Ws.1 and 2 have clearly stated that A-1 harassed the deceased for additional dowry. P.W.5 -Medical Officer has found injury on the left ear and opined that the cause of death is due to the said injury. The deceased was not locked from inside, as the doors were opened when the witness entered into the room.
12. The accused has not explained how the deceased has received the head injury. The version of the accused that they broke open the deceased and went inside the room, is not supported by any material evidence. In fact, P.Ws.3 and 4 were declared as hostile to prosecution as they did not support their earlier 161 Cr.P.C. statements.
13. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the case of A-2 stands on a different footing. A-2 is the mother of A-1, who was living 7 separately from the house of the accused. Therefore, the involvement of A-2 was doubted by the trial court and acquitted A-2. The acquittal of A-2, has, in no way, be considered as a reason for considering acquittal of A-1. The case against A-2 is on a different footing than the case of A-1.
14. P.W.1 clearly stated that he is the father of the deceased. According to him, the marriage of the deceased with A-1 was performed eight years prior to the date of occurrence of the offence. At the time of marriage, they gave Rs.55,000/- towards dowry and Rs.5,000/- towards Adapaduchu Katnam besides presenting 20 sovereigns of gold to the deceased. After marriage, they were blessed with two male children. He further stated that A-1 used to harass the deceased demanding additional dowry and she came to their house for about 10 times as she was not able to bear the harassment in the hands of A-1 and A-2. He further stated that four months prior to the death of the deceased, A-1 and A-2 came to the house of P.W.1 and informed that they will look after the deceased-Kalpana properly and requested to send her back and on that he sent his daughter along with them. After one week, again they started harassing the deceased. P.W.1 further deposed that he came to know that A-1 beat the deceased on the previous night and on the next day also A-1 and A-2 8 beat her and killed. A-1 and A-2 did not inform about the death of his daughter. One Yerramsetty family residing near to the house of A-1 and A-2, informed him over phone about the death of his daughter. He gave a complaint-Ex-P1 to the police station complaining that at the instigation of A-2, A-1 killed his daughter on the ground that they did not pay additional dowry as demanded.
15. The trial court has considered the evidence of P.W.1 with regard to the demand of dowry by A-1 at the time of marriage and about A-1 harassing the deceased and convicted A-1. A-2 was acquitted for the reason that, she used to reside in a separate room in the house. However, A-2 resided in the same compound in the house, along with his son.
16. In the instant case, A-1 is the husband and A-2 is the mother-in- law of the deceased. The allegation against them was that they used to harass her for additional dowry. The evidence of P.W.1 clearly shows that at the time of marriage, A-1 was only given the dowry of Rs.55,000/- and Rs.5,000/- towards Adapaduchu Katnam and 20 sovereign of gold was presented to the deceased.
17. The evidence of P.W.1 reveals that he observed injuries on the left temporal region and left eye. The evidence of P.W.2 would reveal that P.W.1 is his father; deceased is his younger sister and 9 P.Ws.3 and 4 are neighbours. They stated that about two years prior to the incident, one day at about 8.00 p.m. on hearing the cries they went into the house of A-1 and at that time, A-1 was coming down from the upstairs and all of them went into the house of the accused. They found the doors were locked inside and then they all broke open the doors and found the deceased hanging to the ceiling Then all of them brought her from hook and laid her in open place in the house of the deceased.
18. As a matter of fact, these two witnesses were declared as hostile, as they did not support the case of the prosecution. As per 161 Cr.P.C. statements of the witnesses, they all went inside the kitchen and found the dead body of the deceased. The version of the witnesses that all of them broke open the doors was not spoken to by them in their earlier 161 Cr.P.C. statements. Therefore, the evidence of all these witnesses with regard to break open the door and entering into the house is not proved.
19. P.W.4 is the relative of the deceased, who was present at the time of giving dowry of Rs.55,000/- and Rs.5,000/- towards Adapaduchu Katnam and 20 sovereigns of gold to the deceased.
10
20. It is the evidence of all the witnesses that the accused used to harass the deceased and they sent her out of the house and again on mediation, the deceased joined her husband. On one occasion, she went to the house of the accused to settle the issue. On the date of the death of the deceased, P.W.1 contacted the deceased through phone and informed about the death of the deceased. On enquiry, they learnt that the deceased committed suicide by hanging her saree. Her evidence further reveals that when she observed the dead body of the deceased, she found injury near left ear, she did not find any fracture in the neck of the deceased. Therefore, they went to the police station and lodged the complaint.
21. It is appropriate to refer to Ex.P1-complaint as to whether anything spoken about the injury on the forehead of the deceased. In Ex.P1-complaint, it is mentioned that on 08.05.2011, Yerramsetty Madhu, at about 8.00 p.m informed that the deceased consumed liquor and making galata and after some time, big cries came from the house of the deceased and then they rushed to the spot and noticed that the decreased was inside the room by bolting the door. With strong force, the doors were broke opened and found the deceased was hanging to the fan. As contended by the learned counsel for appellant, there is no mention in Ex.P1 about the injuries on the forehead of the deceased. 11
22. The post-mortem report contains the anti mortem injuries out of which one of the injury on the ear extending above from the upper border of the left temporal region to below and behind level of zygomatic bone to the left angle of the lower jaw. Ex.P9 is the inquest report. It is pertinent to note that there is discrepancy between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence. No doubt, as per the settled principles of law, the ocular evidence would prevail over the medical evidence, but the circumstances should, support that the ocular evidence is trustworthy.
23. P.Ws.3 and 4 did not support the version of the prosecution and they have stated that when all of them went to kitchen room in the house of the accused, they found the doors were locked inside and all of them broke open the doors and found the deceased hanging to the hook with saree.
24. The main defence of the appellant is that out of two accused, A-2 was acquitted and the present appellant/A1 was convicted for the offences under Sections 498-A, 302 and 201 IPC. A-1 is the husband and A-2 is the mother-in-law of the deceased. The charges framed against all the accused that they subjected her to cruelty. They beat the deceased with a stick and intentionally caused her death. They have tried to cause disappearance of the evidence by hanging the dead 12 body of the deceased Kalpana to the ceiling fan with her saree after her death. It is obvious that with an intention to screen the said offence of homicide, they have tried to show it as suicide.
25. The harassment was alleged to have been made by both the accused, but, A-1 was convicted and A-2 was acquitted.
26. The medical evidence reveals that the deceased died due to injury received on her head. If the medical evidence is believed, this is a case of homicide but not a suicide. If the version of the witnesses that they pushed the doors with force, and entered into the house is believed, then it is a case of suicide. In the light of the above issue, the evidence of the witnesses is analyzed and a conclusion can be reached about the manner in which the incident must have occurred. P.W.1, who is father of the deceased stated that they were not in a position to pay additional dowry to the accused so requested the deceased to adjust with A-1 keeping in view of the welfare of her children. His evidence also reveals that the deceased informed several times about the harassment meted out by the accused for additional dowry and on every occasion, they used to say that they have no money and asked her to adjust herself with the accused. In fact, P.Ws.3 and 4 did not support the version of the prosecution.
13
27. Learned counsel for appellant placed reliance on the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 with regard to P.Ws.3 and 4 and others going to kitchen room of the accused and broke open the doors and finding Kalpana was hanging to the ceiling and all of them bringing down the dead body of the deceased, and placing in the open place in the house of the accused.
28. P.Ws.6 to 9, are residents of the same village but they did not support the version of the prosecution and their 161 Cr.P.C. statements were marked as Exs.P4 to P7. Therefore, the evidence of these witnesses is of no help to the prosecution case.
29. P.W.11 is the Sarpanch, who held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and opined that the death was due to suicide. Probably, the panchas might have relied on the statement of the witness. Panchas are not the experts to say about cause of death, except to say about the physical observation of deadbody.
30. The testimony of P.W.14 is crucial to this case as he is the Medical Officer, who conducted post mortem on the body of the deceased and opined that the cause of death was due to head injury and issued post mortem report. It is not the case of the appellant that when they have beat the deceased, she had received injury over her head and thereafter, she went inside and committed suicide. The 14 injury on the head of the deceased has not been explained by the accused though, they are residing in the same house. The head injury is the cause of death according to the Medical Officer's evidence. Therefore, the version of the prosecution that A-1 killed the deceased by beating on her head is proved. It is not a case of hanging, but it is only to screen the offence of murder, that defence was taken. The version of the accused is not proved in the light of the medical evidence.
31. The Medical officer has clearly opened that there is no proof to say that it is a case of hanging. All the injuries mentioned in the Post Mortem report are anti mortem in nature. The fatal wound as per the injuries mentioned in the post mortem certificate is the injury on the left side of temporal region.
32. The testimony of P.W.11, medical officer is clear and categorical with regard to nature of death as a homicide and not a suicide. Therefore, there is no doubt that the A-1 alone has committed this offence and therefore, he is liable for the punishment imposed by the trial court.
33. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant-A-1 for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 302 and 201 IPC, vide judgment 15 dated 30.09.2014 in Sessions Case No.325 of 2012 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, SPSR, Nellore. The accused shall serve out the remainder of sentence imposed by the trial court.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this Criminal Appeal, shall stand closed.
_____________________________ JUSTICE G. SHYAM PRASAD ______________________________ JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU 15.11.2019 Mjl/* LR copy to be marked