Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Avulla Yedukondalu vs State Of A.P., Rep. By Its P.P.Hyd. on 7 May, 2020
Author: C. Praveen Kumar
Bench: C. Praveen Kumar, B. Krishna Mohan
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
&
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN
Crl.A. No. 698 of 2015
JUDGMENT:- (per Hon'ble Sri Justice C. Praveen Kumar) Heard Sri Mettu Govardhan Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State through Video Conference operating through Blue-jeans App.
The sole accused in S.C.No. 64 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the learned VI Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Markapur is the appellant herein. He was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 IPC for subjecting his wife namely Avula Lakshmi to cruelty suspecting her fidelity and causing her death with butcher knife. By its judgment dated 24.08.2012, the learned Sessions Judge, while acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for two months.
The facts, as culled out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, are as follows:
The deceased is the wife of the accused. About 11 years ago, she was given in marriage to the accused who hailed from Vinukonda town of Guntur District. Out of
2 CPK,J & BKM,,J Crl.A_698_ 2015 wedlock, they were blessed with two children, but they died due to ill-health. Subsequently, the accused got addicted to vices and started suspecting the fidelity of her wife and harassed her. It is stated that the accused used to stay in the house of one Chelli Chalamaiah (PW2), the brother-in- law of PW1 as PW1 married the sister of PW2. The accused and the sister of PW1 used to live in the house on free of rent. On the date of the incident i.e. 09.11.2011 at 11:30 P.M., one Avula Yogamma (PW11) heard cries of the deceased and informed PW1 about the same. Immediately, PW1 and his brother-in-law (PW2) rushed to the portion of the house where the accused was staying, which is situated in the same colony/vicinity at a distance of about 50 meters. By the time they reached the house of the accused, they noticed the accused coming out of his house. On questioning as to what had happened, the accused, without giving any response left the place in a hurried manner. PWs.1 and 2 went inside the house and found the sister of PW1 lying in a pool of blood with a big head injury and scratches on the neck. Immediately, they reported the matter to the police over phone and the police visited the house on that night and examined the scene of offence on the next day morning at about 10:00 a.m. It is stated that on 10.11.2011 in the early hours at 01:30 a.m., PW1 lodged a report with PW17 - Head Constable of Markapur Town Police Station which is marked as Ex.P1. Basing on the said report, a case in Crime No.193 3 CPK,J & BKM,,J Crl.A_698_ 2015 of 2011 came to be registered. Ex.P21 is the F.I.R. The information about the registration of the crime and the death of the deceased was given to PW18 - Inspector of Police. On receipt of a copy of the F.I.R. from PW17, he went to the scene of offence where he noticed the dead body of the deceased with bleeding injuries. As it was late in the night, he posted a guard at the scene of offence and the dead body. After the day-break, he secured the presence of PW13 and one Avula Venkataiah and examined the scene of offence in their presence. The scene of offence is located in the Tin Sheet roofed house of PW2 in Naanajathula Colony, 29 block, 10th Ward, Markapur Town. At the scene of offence, he seized M.Os.1 to 4 and got prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence under Ex.P22 and also got photographed the scene of offence with the help of PW14. Ex.P18 is the set of photographs and C.D. showing the deceased and the scene of offence. He then conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased. During inquest, he examined PWs.1, 2, 3 and 11 and recorded their statements. Ex.P11 is the inquest report. After conducting inquest, he forwarded the dead body of the deceased to Government Hospital, Markapur for conducting post-mortem examination.
PW15 - Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Area Hospital, Markapur conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased on 10.11.2011 at about 02:35 P.M. and issued 4 CPK,J & BKM,,J Crl.A_698_ 2015 Ex.P19 - Post-mortem report. According to him, the cause of death of the deceased was due to multiple injuries, subdural haematoma and primary shock of hemorrhage. PW18 - Inspector of Police continued with the investigation by examining several witnesses and recorded their statements. Thereafter, he secured the clothes of the deceased from constable under police proceedings. M.Os.7 to 9 are the clothes of the deceased. Ex.P23 is the police proceedings. On 28.11.2011, on receipt of credible information, he secured the presence of PWs.13 and 16, proceeded to the Railway Station, Rayavaram and noticed the accused near GRP outpost. On interrogation, the accused confessed his guilt. Ex.P20 is the relevant portion of the confession statement of the accused. Thereafter, the accused is stated to have led them to Agricultural Market and Society Buildings situated at Dornala Road and showed one knife located by the side of a big tomb and the same was seized under of Mahazaar. Blood stains were found on the knife. Thereafter, the accused led them to the backyard of the house of PW2 and picked upon a bamboo stick from the Japan babul bushes. Exs.P16 and P17 are the seizure mahazaars. M.Os.5 and 6 are the knife and bamboo stick. Later, the accused was remanded to judicial custody. After completing the investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed which was taken on file as P.R.C. No.12 of 2012 on the file of 5 CPK,J & BKM,,J Crl.A_698_ 2015 the Court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Markapur.
On appearance of the accused documents as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., were furnished to the accused and since the case is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the same was committed to the Court of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Markapur under Section 209 Cr.P.C.
On appearance of the accused, charge under Sections 498-A and 302 IPC came to be framed against him, read over and explained to him in Telugu, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 18 and got marked Exs.P1 to P27 and M.Os.1 to 9. Out of eighteen witnesses, PWs.2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 did not support the prosecution case and they were declared hostile.
After the closure of 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, however he did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence in support of his case.
Relying upon the evidence of PWs.1, 3 and 11 and also the evidence of hostile witnesses which corroborate the evidence of other witnesses, the learned Sessions Judge 6 CPK,J & BKM,,J Crl.A_698_ 2015 convicted and sentenced the accused as mentioned above. Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be filed.
The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that there is absolutely no legal evidence available on record to connect the accused with the crime. According to him, all the independent witnesses did not support the prosecution case and the conviction based on the evidence of interested witnesses cannot be accepted. He also submits that there is no evidence on record to show that the accused was present in his house at the time of the incident and there are no eye- witnesses to the incident. According to him, the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution do not connect the accused with the crime.
The same is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor contending that PWs.1, 2 and others have seen the accused coming out of the house and they when questioned him, he, without giving any reply, hurriedly left the place. On suspicion, they went into the house and noticed the dead body of the deceased lying in a pool of blood with bleeding injuries. In the absence of any explanation given by the accused with regard to the presence of the dead body of his wife in the house, he contends that it is a fit case where the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court warrant no interference.
7 CPK,J & BKM,,J Crl.A_698_ 2015 The point that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution was able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?
The first point to be dealt with is whether it is a case of homicidal death of the deceased? The prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of PW15 - Medical Officer, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P19 - inquest proceedings, and also relied upon the photographs of the deceased, scene of offence drafted by PW14 and post-mortem report of the deceased besides the evidence of circumstantial witnesses who had seen the accused and the deceased together alone in the house just prior to the occurrence. From this, it is evident that the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was a case of homicide. In fact, there is no dispute about the same.
The next point that arises for consideration is whether the circumstances so relied upon by the prosecution are sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused.
It is no doubt true that there are no eye-witnesses to the incident and the case rests on circumstantial evidence. In a case arising out of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has to establish each of the circumstance relied upon by them and the circumstances so proved should form a chain of events connecting the accused with the crime. In the instant case, the evidence of PWs.1, 2, 3, 6 and 11, in 8 CPK,J & BKM,,J Crl.A_698_ 2015 our view, establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. PW11, a neighbour of the deceased, is an elderly woman aged about 65 years. She, in her evidence, deposed that the accused is her grandson by courtesy. The accused and the deceased stayed in the house where the deceased died. On the night of the incident, PW11 came out of her house to attend calls of nature and passed through the house of the accused. While passing through the house of the accused, she observed some altercation and a quarrel in the house of the accused. Immediately, she informed the same to PW1 and went on to attend calls of nature. While returning home, she noticed crowd in front of the house of the accused. She came to know that the accused killed the deceased and fled away. She further deposed that she had seen the deceased and the accused quarrelling frequently and the accused used to consume liquor and quarrel with his wife every now and then. In her cross-examination, nothing is elicited to discredit her testimony. Her evidence is consistent, cogent and there are no grounds to doubt her trustworthiness, more particularly, with regard to the presence of the accused with the deceased in the house a few minutes prior to the death of the deceased. On receiving information from PW11, PWs.1 and 2 proceeded to the house of the accused. PW1, in his evidence, testified that on being informed by PW11 that she heard cries and also the quarrel between the accused and the deceased, PW1 9 CPK,J & BKM,,J Crl.A_698_ 2015 along with PW2 rushed to the house of the accused which is situated in the same colony and by the time they reached the house, the accused was coming out of the house. When they questioned him as to what happened, the accused left the place in a hurried manner without responding to their queries. Then, PWs.1 and 2 went inside the house, found the deceased in a pool of blood with a head injury and scratches on her neck. PW1 reported the matter to the police over phone. Thereafter, the law was set into motion by lodging a report. Though PW1 was cross-examined at length, we feel that nothing useful came to be elicited to discredit his testimony.
It is no doubt true that PW1 is a relative of the deceased but his evidence remained unimpeached to the extent of the accused being seen coming out of the house and leaving the place in a hurried manner and the body of the deceased lying inside the tin shed. No explanation is forthcoming from the accused as to how the dead body of the deceased with injuries all over the body is found in his house. Definitely, we feel that it is a case where the accused failed to discharge his burden as contemplated under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.
It is to be noted that suggestions given to PW1 with regard to the innocence of the accused were all denied by him. In addition, it has been elicited that due to illiteracy, PW1 could not say the date of harassment meted out by the 10 CPK,J & BKM,,J Crl.A_698_ 2015 accused towards his sister. It was also elicited that the house of PW11 and the house of PW1 are not situated in the same line of the street but they are opposite to each other. The house in which the deceased and the accused stayed was purchased by PW3 from PW1 and the house was acquired by his parents. The above admissions, elicited in the cross- examination of PW1, stand establish that the accused and the deceased were living together.
Though the learned counsel for the appellant tried to contend that there is no evidence on record to show that the accused was in the house on that night, we feel that the argument remained a mere argument without substantiating the same. The evidence of PWs.1, 2 3 and 11 amply establish that the accused was present in the house and all of them saw him leaving the house in a hurried manner. Though PW2 was declared hostile, but the earlier portion of his evidence clearly shows that on the fateful day at 11:00 p.m., PW11, who is his aunt by courtesy, shouted on hearing cries of the deceased Lakshmi and having heard the shouts, himself and PW1 came out from the house and rushed to the house of the deceased. By the time they reached the house of the deceased, the accused was seen coming out of the house, and on seeing them, he went way. Then, PWs.1 and 2 went inside and noticed the dead body of the deceased in a pool of blood. This part of the evidence of PW2 gets corroboration from the evidence of PW1. Merely because he 11 CPK,J & BKM,,J Crl.A_698_ 2015 was declared hostile when he deposed about the failure on the part of the police in examining him, but the earlier portion of the evidence of PW2, in our view, gets corroboration from the evidence of PW1. However, in the cross-examination by the accused, PW2 categorically denies the statement that he was tutored by the police. He also denied the statement that PW11 did not inform anything about the altercation that took place between the deceased and the accused. Hence, we feel that though PW2 was declared hostile, but his evidence is to the extent it supports the case of the prosecution can be accepted.
PW3 is the wife of PW1 staying at Nanajathula Colony, Markapur. She in her evidence deposed about the marriage of the accused and the deceased. She further deposed that three months prior to the death of the deceased, PWs.1 and 2 shifted the accused and the deceased from Vinukonda to their Colony at Markapur, as the deceased was harassed by the accused and used to beat her frequently. The accused and the deceased put up their family in the house of PW2 free of rent. According to her, even after shifting to Markapur, the accused did not change his attitude but continued to harass the deceased physically and mentally till the date of her death. On the night of the fateful day, PWs.1 and 2, having learnt through PW11 about the beatings given by the accused to the deceased, they rushed to the house of the deceased and found her head. They also 12 CPK,J & BKM,,J Crl.A_698_ 2015 noticed the accused coming out of the house in a hurried manner. As PW3 was pregnant, she went there slowly and found the dead body of the deceased in a naked condition with injury on the back side of her neck, and scratches on the front side. She was also cross-examined, but nothing useful has been elicited. The suggestions given to her were denied and no material has been brought on record to disbelieve the version of PW3.
Even PW4, who did not support the prosecution case, deposed in the earlier portion of the evidence in chief, about a woman being beaten by the accused to death.
From the evidence of these witnesses it is very much stands established that the accused alone is responsible for causing the death of the deceased. It may be true that none of them have seen the accused beating the deceased, but basing on the quarrel that took place between the accused and the deceased, PW11 informed PWs.1 and 2, and on receipt of the said information, they proceeded to the said house and noticed the accused coming out of the house, who, after giving them evasive answers left the place in a hurried manner. PWs.1 and 2 went inside the house and noticed the dead body with injuries. Therefore, in the absence of any explanation being given by the accused as to how the dead body is in the house and as the accused failed to discharge his burden under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, in our considered view, the commission of the 13 CPK,J & BKM,,J Crl.A_698_ 2015 offence by the accused stands established. Hence, we feel that the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court warrants no interference.
Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant vide judgment dated 24.08.2012 in S.C.No. 64 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the learned VI Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Markapur.
As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
__________________ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J 07.05.2020 __________________ B. KRISHNA MOHAN, J bcj