Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Sooguru Subramanyam vs The State Of A.P. Rep. By It'S A.P.P. on 28 August, 2006
JUDGMENT G. Yethirajulu, J.
1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the sole accused in Sessions Case No. 169 of 2001 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Madanapalle in Chittoor District. He was charged for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C.') for allegedly killing his wife by name Nagamani by smothering. He denied the charge and claimed for trial.
2. The case of the prosecution leading to the conviction of the accused is briefly as follows:
The accused married the deceased on 30-04-1998 and they used to live happily for some time. Later, the deceased developed illicit intimacy with one Imamvalli, the neighbour of their house. About 12 days prior to the incident, the deceased was seen in the company of Imamvalli while returning in an auto by PW-3. The accused also noticed the said fact, stopped the auto and beat Imamvalli. The accused also warned the deceased suspecting her character. The differences between the accused and the deceased developed, which resulted in quarrels between them during nights. On 16-10-2000 at about 7.30 p.m. there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased on account of the deceased not discontinuing her illicit intimacy with Imamvalli. On 17-10-2000 at about 6.30 a.m. the deceased was found dead in the house. The doors of the house were locked from outside. PW.1 gave a report to the police and a crime was registered. During the course of investigation, the lock of the room was opened by PW-13 in the presence of mediators PW-12 and another. During the course of investigation, they seized the incriminating material from the scene of offence and inquest held over the dead body of the deceased. Later, the dead body sent for post-mortem examination. After completion of the investigation, the police laid the charge sheet.
3. The prosecution, in order to prove the guilt of the accused, examined PWs.1 to 15 and Exs.P-1 to 29 and MOs.1 to 15. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on defence side. After conclusion of the evidence, the trial Court found the accused guilty of the alleged offence and convicted him for the offence u/s.302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment of life and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court dated 03-12-2002, the present Criminal Appeal has been preferred.
4. The plea of the accused is one of denial. Now, the point for consideration is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt?
5. The evidence of PW.11-Doctor, who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased found the following external and internal injuries:
External injuries:
There is bloody discharge coming out from both the nostrils. Tongue tip bluish in colour seen in between the upper and lower teeth. Lips blackish in colour with diffuse abrasions over both the lips. Nose bluish discolour time present over right nostril, ears -bluish black discolour of the left pinna.
1. An abrasion of 4 x 2 cm over left mandibular margin.
2. An abrasion of 1/2 x 1/2 cm over left upper lid.
3. An abrasion of 2 x 1/2 cm over right leg anterior aspect.
4. A linear abrasion of 2 x 1/3 cm voer dorsum of right foot.
Internal injuries:
Neck - Hyiod normal, thyroid, cricoid cartligas normal, larynx - congested. Trache - Bronchi - normal. Lungs - Normal, Cut section congested, stomach - normal and they are congested. Intestines distended gases, urinary bladder empty. Ulterus-normal. Scalp: A diffuse contusion of 10 x 8 cm over left occipto-partial region. On reflexion of scalp a diffuse hematioma of 8 x 8 cm over left occipto parital region present. Skul, bones, base of the skull- normal. Meninges - normal, brain-normal size congested. Spine bones of the extremities - normal.
He opined that the deceased would appear to have died of Asphyxi as a result of smothering, and time of death was 36 to 40 hours prior to post-mortem examination.
6. It has to be examined from the evidence of witnesses whether the evidence placed by the prosecution is sufficient to connect the accused for the offence proper.
The offence took place in the bedroom of the house of accused and it was found the door locked. The Inspector of Police in the presence of mediators broke opened the lock of the door and on opening the same he found the deceased lying dead. The house is in the exclusive possession of the accused.
7. PWs.1 to 5 and 7 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case.
8. PW-1, the owner of the house deposed that about one year back, the accused and the deceased joined as tenants in his house. Some other Muslims were also tenants of his house. The accused and the deceased were living amicably. He heard some commotion in the morning from the portion of the accused and came to know that somebody died. He did not say anything more about the incident.
9. PW-8, a resident of Venkatapuram village and the sister of the deceased deposed that the accused and the deceased live for some time at Hindupur and some time at Srikalahasti and later to Madanapalle. The deceased came to her house and informed that the accused was harassing her on the pretext that she developed illicit intimacy with someone.
10. PW-9, a resident of Venkatapuram village deposed that on 01-10-2000 the deceased came to Hindupur and informed them that the accused was harassing her on the pretext that she developed illicit intimacy with someone else. They consoled her and sent her back on 17-10-2000. They received information that the deceased was murdered by the accused.
11. PW-10 who is a resident of Hindupur, did not speak about any incriminating material against the accused.
12. PW-12, a resident of Madanapalle deposed that on 17-10-2000 at about 6.30 or 7 a.m. he came to know that the deceased died. He went to the house of deceased and found the door locked. After the police came, the lock was opened and the dead body of deceased was found on the ground with a pillow on her face. Thereafter, an inquest was held over the dead body of deceased and observations noted therein. They opined that the deceased might have been murdered by her husband by placing the pillow on her face and pressing it.
13. PW-13, the Inspector of police deposed that when he proceeded to the scene of offence, he found the door locked from outside. He summoned a photographer to take photos and the lock was opened in the presence of panchas and they entered into the room and found the dead body of the deceased. He held inquest over the dead body of the deceased. He seized MOs.1 to 15, a printed book with some written material in telugu and a letter addressed by deceased to her junior paternal aunt. Later, he sent the dead body of deceased for post-mortem examination. On 31-01-2000 the police arrested the accused and brought him to police station.
14. PW-14, a photographer deposed that PW-1 is the owner of the house that was shown to him near Saibaba temple. The house was locked and he has taken the photographs of the locked door. The lock was broken and he has also taken the photographs of the same. He entered into the house and found the dead body of deceased covered by bed sheet and he also took the photographs of the dead body of deceased.
15. PW-15, the Scientific Assistant of Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, deposed that on 29-11-2000 a requisition was received from the Court to give an opinion regarding questioned documents on a notebook. After careful examination of the original documents, the expert gave his opinion opining that the deceased person who wrote the red ink closed writings marked as S-1 to S-6 also wrote the red ink closed writings marked as Q.1 and Q.2.
16. From the above evidence, it is clear that none of the witnesses witnessed the occurrence, but categorically stated that the accused and the deceased used to live together in the rented house of PW-1 as on the date of offence. The accused was suspecting the fidelity of the deceased. They were found in the house during that night. Nobody knows what happened in the house. But in the morning they noticed the door locked from outside and the accused absconding from the house. After brake opening of the doors, they found the deceased lying dead and the dead body was covered by bed sheet. The rented house was in exclusive possession of the accused and the deceased. It is not the case of the accused that somebody else has locked the door from outside. When once the room is in exclusive possession of the accused and it is locked from outside, there is no possibility for any third party to enter into the room. Therefore, he has to explain as to who is responsible for the cause of death. In the absence of any explanation, it can be safely concluded that the accused was responsible for the commission of offence. There is no suggestion to any of the witnesses that the offence might have taken place in a particular manner. Regarding the presence of the dead body of deceased in the bedroom, which is in his exclusive possession, the accused cannot be given any benefit of doubt. Admittedly, the accused did not suggest any witnesses that the deceased died due to some other cause. The accused was absconding from the house for considerable period. Had he not committed the offence of murder, he would not have kept quiet without reporting the matter to the police.
17. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that in the absence of any direct witnesses, there are no circumstances leading to the conclusion that the accused was responsible for the commission of offence. In support of his contention, he relied on the following judgments.
i) In Prem Thakur v. State of Punjab , wherein the Supreme Court held as follows:
in a case which depends wholly upon circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be of such a nature as to be capable of supporting the exclusive hypothesis that the accused is guilty of the crime of which he is charged. On facts that evidence showing that the accused was present with the deceased on the previous evening and he was then missing from there on the next morning cannot prove the offences alleged against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt." The facts and circumstances of the case covered by above decision are different than the facts and circumstances of the case on hand.
ii) In Anant Bhujangrao Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra 1992 CRI. L.J. 4027 the Supreme Court held that in a case where the accused last seen along with the deceased and recovery of dead body on information given by the accused, as the prosecution failed to prove the place of recovery is in exclusive possession of the accused, the evidence is unreliable and the accused could not be convicted. But in the present case, there is sufficient material to show that the house is in exclusive possession of the accused and as he failed to get any information from any of the witnesses that he is not in exclusive possession of the house, the above principle is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
iii) In Pohalya Motya v. State of Maharashtra 1979 CRI.L.J 1310 wherein the Supreme Court held as follows:
ordinarily, when a person is accused of committing murder of another, the fact that the accused and the deceased were last seen alive in company of each other and the failure of the accused to satisfactorily account for the disappearance of the deceased is considered a circumstance of an incriminating character. But where two accused were last seen with the deceased and though both should explain the disappearance of the deceased, one of them is acquitted of the charge of murder and no appeal is filed against his acquittal, the very circumstance that the deceased was last seen with them ceases to be of an incriminating character and the other accused cannot also be convicted solely on that basis.
This decision is also not applicable to the facts of the present case as there was sole accused in the present case.
iv) In Lakhanpal v. State of Madhra Pradesh AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1620 wherein the Supreme Court held as follows:
in prosecution for offence of murder the mere fact that the accused and the deceased were together in the field prior to the occurrence does not by itself lead to irresistible inference that the accused must have murdered the deceased.
18. In the present case, in addition to the fact that the accused lived with the deceased during that night, the locking of the door is an additional circumstance, which lead to a conclusion, but for the hand work of the accused there is no possibility for any other person to keep the dead body of deceased in the bedroom without his knowledge when the door was locked by him.
19. From the totality of the circumstances, the appellant failed to explain the presence of the dead body of deceased in the bedroom, which is in his exclusive possession. The non-explanation of the accused and the material available on record leads to a conclusion that there is no possibility of any other person to commit the offence except the accused and the complexity of the accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt that he was responsible for the commission of offence. The trial Court rightly came to a conclusion that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt by observing that the accused was with the deceased during the night on date of offence, the dead body was found in the bedroom, which is in exclusive possession of the accused, the door was closed by locking the door from outside and the absence of accused from the date of offence for considerable period. Accordingly, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused for the offence as indicated above.
20. After going through the judgment of the trial Court and after considering the entire evidence, we do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court.
21. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment of the trial Court in all respects.